Councillor Tom Johnston declares: "All states follow interests rather than principles" (Letters, September 1).

So, why is he in the SNP, which upholds the principle of national self-determination against the interests of the British state? And why bother to set any limit on the proposed lease of Faslane: why not just lease it in perpetuity? Think of all the money we could make.

He perversely proposes an ethics-free political system. If we had lived by this obnoxious position, then the African slave trade would not have ended and nobody would have the vote. The interests of the slavers would have prevailed, and the interests of the ruling class would remain unbridled.

His confusion about interests and principles has the bizarre result of his supporting the UK's continued deployment of Trident.

As this is a weapon of mass destruction it violates the basic principle of a just war, which demands respect for civilian immunity. But Councillor Johnston, as he admits, places no priority on principles.

Does this SNP councillor's open and public support for Trident indicate a change in policy by the SNP, or is Tom Johnston merely sabotaging basic party principles? Is Alex Salmond telling the truth when he says that getting rid of Trident is non-negotiable, or will the SNP actually adopt Councillor Johnston's unprincipled approach?

John Ainslie rightly says: "The future of the British nuclear weapons programme lies in the hands of the people of Scotland" (Letters, September 1). This being the case, we must be absolutely clear about Trident. Is it SNP policy to get rid of it asap, or is it not?

Brian Quail,

SNP CND,

2 Hyndland Avenue, Glasgow.

RICHARD Mowbray writes that there would be no saving to an independent Scotland from getting rid of Trident or leaving Nato (Letters, September 1). It is difficult to see how he works this out.

The UK currently spends around 2.6% of its GDP on defence, amongst the highest in the world. The Republic of Ireland by contrast is a non-Nato, non-nuclear state and spends around 0.6% of its GDP on defence. Given that Scotland has a GDP of around £131 billion, a saving of 2% of GDP would amount to a saving of £2.6 billion. In a country of five million people that is a considerable amount of money that could go on alternative spending or, as I am sure Mr Mowbray would prefer, tax cuts.

In practice it would be difficult to reduce spending by this much in the immediate future. However even in the short run there would still be considerable savings. It is absurd to presume that an independent Scotland, whether or not it joins Nato, would keep defence spending at current levels, given how high UK spending is and the fact that a lot of it goes on activities that have nothing to do with national defence and that a small country would be unlikely to engage in.

Iain Paterson,

2F Killermont View, Glasgow.

COUNCILLOR Johnston's contribution to the Nato debate is a graphic illustration of the dangers that a policy change driven by the toxic drivers of fear and polarisation presents to the independence campaign.

The proposers of the policy change view the world as an unstable and dangerous place and contend that those of us who wish to retain current policy are naive not to recognise this.

As this debate is revealing, Scotland is geopolitically blessed. It may seem selfish to some that an independent Scotland might not be prepared to share in others' geopolitical burden but as Councillor Johnston rightly says in the closing sentence of his letter, "those who want an independent Scottish state must remember that all states follow interests rather than principles".

Fortunately for Scotland our geopolitical position, achieved as much through happy accident as design, means that we can pursue our national interests and remain principled. As a selling point in the referendum campaign I would have thought it had rather more utility than to try and mobilise the Scottish people through visions of fear and polarisation.

Bill Ramsay,

Organiser,

SNP CND,

84 Albert Avenue, Glasgow.